DING DING DING December 1 release notes Topic

arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro

Oh, and perhaps this just bugs me, Seeble. . but from having taken over previously sim controlled teams and observation., I can see that the practice minutes matrix that sim teams apply neglects ANY minutes in LP for guards - which it shouldn't now - and practically any in per for posts.   Could that practice mask be updated a bit to account for the differences in the engine now, which would make the sims perhaps a bit less wonky with player ratings?

 

12/2/2011 11:34 PM
asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 73 4
Rookie
My $.019, readress/re-evaluate the win requirements for NT/PIT.  NT's .500 line- don't like it, but fine, it works.  PIT should have a line as well (say, 10 wins?).

That may not pass the smell test, but as long as we have unrealistic scheduling by the coaches within a world (big 6 with more road than home games very often, or too few cupcakes on a power's schedule, etc), it's hard to have every scenario pass a smell test.  We have very smart people who do very solid math understanding how to create the proper variables for their team to have the 'right' NT/PIT credentials.  They don't have to worry about getting fired after a 7 win season as long as they have a high RPI and make the PIT...
12/2/2011 11:56 PM
barretchap
Posts: 194 (0)
Hall of Famer
321
Prospect
Should we add what the NCAA started doing recently?  If you win the regular season conference title (not just your division) but lose in the Conference Tournament, you get an automatic bid to the PIT.  That might bump some of these teams that have poor records.

Personally I don't think you penalize a team that has had some success against better teams even if they lose more than they win.  I'd love to see records against RPI top 50, 100 added to the mix for selection criteria or seeding.  I know that would double how much RPI is used and it is a flawed metric, but that would address what many people are pointing out.  If you have bad losses to teams rated between 125-175 and no wins versus teams in the top 100, then you don't belong unless you win the CT.  I'd call that the MEAC rule.  When was the last time the MEAC (or enter any of 10-15 other conferences) had more than one team in the big dance? 

Allowing teams to schedule all cream puffs to go 26-0 and get a great seed/make the tournament is worse to me than a 14-13 team making the NT or a 10-17 team making the PIT.  I agree with alblack though that there should be some sort of minimum wins to be eligible...just not sure what that number should be.
12/3/2011 12:07 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
barret, I believe that four of the criteria are:  record vs. RPI top 50;  record vs. RPI 51-90, record vs. RPI 100-200; and record vs. RPI 200+.  So your idea is already in play
12/3/2011 4:53 AM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
14 - 13 sure. . . . even 12 - 15 or 13 - 14 in the pt.  But I would have a bit of a problem with 10 - 17.      YOu should at least be able to see 500 from your record and have been able to get there with a  bit of luck.

12/3/2011 5:29 AM
thethrill10
Posts: 46 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 1 89 2 3
Prospect
Posted by tkimble on 12/2/2011 7:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by seble on 12/2/2011 6:40:00 PM (view original):
As someone mentioned, that FSU team is as extreme as you'll find.  #1 SOS and still pretty competitive.  Of course wins are important, but there has to be context to each win.  How hard is it to win 20+ games when you never play any decent teams?  Keep in mind that in a lot of cases, HD currently has a lot less parity than real life.  So there are some dynamite teams stuck in killer conferences. 

It's obviously a tough problem to solve, which is why every year in real life there are articles about horrible snubs and surprise picks.  It's not easy to compare teams like FSU, a competitive team in a power conference, with Manhatten, who cleaned up against a weak schedule. 

So really, is it better to reward a team like Manhatten or a team like FSU?  I'm asking sincerely, I'd like to hear some feedback.


Like you said, this is an extreme situation.  I'm actually on the Florida State side of this situation: they have demonstrated they can beat good teams and have lost to some of the very best teams in the country.  Manhattan has shown they can beat teams that are awful and occasionally lose to teams that are bad.  FSU didn't lose to any bad teams.  I say, since it's not the NT, put FSU in over Manhattan, they have a better chance to win the PIT.  If Manhattan thinks they should be in the discussion to play in the postseason, they should have played somebody, anybody, good in the non-con.  The non-con is where you should prove yourself, and Manhattan did not do that, FSU did, so FSU should be higher than Manhattan.  Obviously, this schedule was made to have a high RPI.  People will now have to adjust their scheduling to actually play good teams as opposed to play crappy sim teams on the road.  
First off Manhattan inheritted that non-con schedule, there is no way I would include such a garbage schedule if I had a choice.  I even tried to schedule non-conference when I took over but was unable to it was locked in.  Second, as I stated earlier, there is no way you can get a schedule like this out of any conference other than a superpower conference.  Even if Manhattan scheduled some teams out of conference the in conference simai littered schools would bring down schedule and again, if a 7-20 team is even going to start making the postseason now then you will have even more of a ghosttown in any conference in DI other than those superconferences who already have so much of a built in advantage it is not funny.  I just don't understand how we went from how things pretty much worked in real life to saying that a team that goes 1-15 in conference is competitive?  6-10 sure but 1-15.  I don't even care about the Manhattan part right now  bad losses fine no NT I have no problem with that, I am fighting in general how you can seriously say a 7-20 team is postseason worthy.   You have to win more games than that in real life the only time I have heard this even being a discussion is like the 14-13 Georgia team that beat a bunch of top 5 ranked schools.  The UNC team that I pointed out earlier was 0-11 versus top 25 so they beat some good teams but did they beat any great teams like the Georgia team did in real life?  and 13-13 is a whole lot easier to take than 11-17.  I really would have no problem with a team that is close to .500 and have elite wins but 1-15 in conference with one win versus an top 125 RPI  in conference is what you are rewarding Florida State for.  They beat Georgia Tech and that is conpetitive? 
12/3/2011 7:26 AM
thethrill10
Posts: 46 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 1 89 2 3
Prospect
And now that I am going let's look at what Florida state did in these wins that you say prove they have beat great teams and so much better than Manhattan's wins.  RPI wins versus 81at Pitt ,181 at UTEP, 64 at Mercer, 36 at Monmouth, 89 at Western Kentucky, 121 at East Carolina.  So this super elite winning team has their best Win against a #36 Monmouth team that many can say is almost a clone of Manhattan, they just did a better job at winning all their games and not losing on the road or in their conference tourny.  Florida State has beat a bunch of Manhattans and no one else.  So before you bring in this Florida State has beaten and played real teams crap why don't you actually look at the results.  So why don't we now just forget about actually playing the games and rank the postseason teams by ratings since one win versus a #36 RPI team gets a 7-20 team into the postseason.  This is about as ridiculus as it gets.
12/3/2011 7:33 AM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
As long as we play a simulation game we cannot compare it to real life. Because coaches can schedule however they want and because the big 6 conferences have gotten so good, you can't say that a sub 500 team, even one that is 7-20 isn't tournament worthy.

I suppose the question should be is the goal of post season play to have the best teams playing each other or is it something else?

Also somebody mentioned it earlier but baseline prestige needs to be adjusted. I believe Illinois is an A or A- that's just silly.
12/3/2011 9:50 AM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro

Doesn't that mean that perhaps the coach that is going 7 - 20 should schedule differently in his non conference, going for some easy wins?  Again, I repeat. . its not good for the game to have newcomers watch 7 - 20 teams get in and be skipped over, whatever you think of 'how good' those teams are.   

12/3/2011 12:23 PM
thethrill10
Posts: 46 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 1 89 2 3
Prospect
Again at this point they beat 1 team out of 27 games that would be in the NT a 36 RPI team.  How in the world does a team that is 7-20 with that resume be on the bubble for the NT because they lost to a bunch of good teams.  And this is based on real life so to throw real life out of the equation is not smart too.  I remember when tarik made they game he talked so much about talking to real life coaches and te3ams to base the game on.  So my fantasy football team that is 3-7 this year should be in the playoffs because I think they are good and I lost a bunch of games by under 3 points.  It is not how things are supposed to work in my opinion.
12/3/2011 2:29 PM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
by far my favorite thing about this thread is that, every time i see the title, i think of Hector Salamanca sitting in his wheelchair, angrily ringing a bell.
12/3/2011 2:43 PM
pumphead
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
235 1
Prospect
Posted by arssanguinus on 12/2/2011 11:34:00 PM (view original):

Oh, and perhaps this just bugs me, Seeble. . but from having taken over previously sim controlled teams and observation., I can see that the practice minutes matrix that sim teams apply neglects ANY minutes in LP for guards - which it shouldn't now - and practically any in per for posts.   Could that practice mask be updated a bit to account for the differences in the engine now, which would make the sims perhaps a bit less wonky with player ratings?

 

Wait, what? If that's accurate, it doesn't just bother you.
12/3/2011 9:44 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
Every time I have taken over a sim team and looked at the practice minutes, the setup on minutes by position is exactly the same.


PG: CND: 14, REB: 7, FW:14, lp: 0, PE: 14, BH:15, P: 15, FT:11

SG: CND:13, REB: 7, FW: 13, LP: 0, PE: 20, BH: 13, P: 12, FT: 12

SF: CND: 13, REB: 12, FW: 13, LP: 10, PE: 10, BH: 10, P: 10, FT: 12

PF: CND: 12, REB: 20, FW: 12, LP: 20, PE: 0, BH: 5, P: 10, FT: 11

C :  CND: 12, REB: 20, FW: 12, LP: 19, PE: 0, BH: 5, P: 10, FT: 12


12/3/2011 10:28 PM (edited)
pumphead
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
235 1
Prospect
Can't believe that hasn't been changed since the guards/LP release.
12/3/2011 10:58 PM
barretchap
Posts: 194 (0)
Hall of Famer
321
Prospect
Posted by alblack56 on 12/3/2011 4:54:00 AM (view original):
barret, I believe that four of the criteria are:  record vs. RPI top 50;  record vs. RPI 51-90, record vs. RPI 100-200; and record vs. RPI 200+.  So your idea is already in play
I see that now Al.  I wish they could include that in the postseason projections somehow (probably takes up too much space).  I've noticed in Naismith that I'm ranked 8th in the projections while I have better numbers in nearly every category than the #5 team.  No real difference there is seeding, but I found it curious.  I guess the records against top 200 competition must be the difference.
12/3/2011 11:16 PM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9|10|11...16 Next ▸
DING DING DING December 1 release notes Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.